• Sections
Evolution vs. Creation

# Evolution vs. Creation

There are 223289 comments on the Best of New Orleans story from Jan 6, 2011, titled Evolution vs. Creation. In it, Best of New Orleans reports that:

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Best of New Orleans.

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#120386 Aug 18, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Amazing isn't it? on this thread it must have been claimed a thousand times that they know that life began with a series of chemical reactions in the primordial soup and they're v-e-r-y close to knowing how.
Absolutely no proof mind you,....just their belief
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/12/new-s...

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#120387 Aug 18, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
This is why I don't believe in abiogenesis. Even with intelligent design (human effort) we have not been able to accomplish this in over 50 years, while by chance it is supposed to have happened. What are the odds of the right mix coming along? Isn't the statistical probability so low, that theories have been developed to postulate life being planted on the earth from space?
Dr. James Coppedge an expert in statistical probability puts it this way:..the probability of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance is 1 in 10 to the 161st power using all the atoms on earth and allowing all the time since the world began....That's just the beginning!

For a minimum set of the required 239 protein molecules for the smallest theoretical life the probability is 1 in 10 followed by 119, 879 zeros.

When the evolutionists began saying that life arose by chance, math could be used to measure the probabilities of that chance.
of course since it conflicts with their beliefs , they dismiss the math.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#120388 Aug 18, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
Same ole articles,...... could have! nope, no life

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#120389 Aug 18, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
A huge part of this is that we do not know the conditions required for life to start. We also do not know details of the conditions on the early Earth. So reconstructing the conditions is not a trivial thing to do.
Next, what we have *attempted* is construction of the basic building blocks of life (success), determining whether cell-like structures form naturally (they do), whether basic reactions are catalyzed by the chemical produced from those basic building blocks (they are).
What we do not know is whether the first life had DNA (RNA seems to be easier to make and leads to good reactions), what specific environment it happened in (deep sea vents? shallow puddles? inside clays?), and how long it took to form (probably a couple hundred million years).
If it took a hundred million years for life to form, it may not be possible to produce a start-to-finish demonstration in the lab, even if every stage can be produced. if you have looked at the abiogenesis research, there has been a tremendous amount of success over the last 50 years. Given that 60 years ago we did not know the DNA code for amino acids and 50 years ago we did not know the basics of manipulation of DNA, this seems to be blazing advancement to me. Again, we simply did not know the conditions required, so have been doing a search for what those conditions are. Given the number of different, possible interacting environments, available, this seems to me to be remarkable advancement.
And, I should point out that we understand a great many things we cannot do in the lab: fusion in stars, for example.
Here you are again ....it took a hundred million years for life to form! Time is not a mechanism! time did not cause life! So you believe your compounds just floated around for millions of years waiting to self organize and spring to life? Earlier you said its just a matter of the proper chemicals in the proper mixture and life goes shazzam!, chemical reaction!

You really are grasping at straws aren't you?
Why not just claim ,as some have faced with the enormous complexity of life,that aliens seeded the earth , it would save you from all that meandering about

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

#120390 Aug 18, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Same ole articles,...... could have! nope, no life
I see blowfart is still to stupid to understand the concept of a hypothesis.
I guess we are lucky he was not one of the Wright brothers. Could fly.. no hope at all.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#120391 Aug 18, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> It's above your level of understanding, but we know it happened despite your
inability to methodically puzzle it out.
Oh yeah its definitely above my understanding , its so high up that no one knows how ,but as ....YOU STATED ,....WE KNOW IT HAPPENED!

Interesting belief

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#120392 Aug 18, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh yeah its definitely above my understanding , its so high up that no one knows how ,but as ....YOU STATED ,....WE KNOW IT HAPPENED!
Interesting belief
Life exists ERGO: it happened.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120393 Aug 19, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
What is the explanation for proteins to remain after 65 million years?
This answer is given by Schweitzer herself:
1) the specimen were preserved in anaerobic conditions, hence new bacteria or chemicals could not enter, AND:
2) the specimen were in an iron rich environment.

She tested this by submerging ostrich tissue in two types of liquids and preserved them in aerobic, warm (room temperature) environments:
1. in water. The tissue - as expected - rot away in a few days
2. in an iron-rich liquid. Even after 2 years, the tissue did not decay and even retained its morphology pretty much. After chemical analysis, she discovered that the iron pretty does what formaldehyde does: bonding the proteins of the tissue to more stable compounds. Formaldehyde is generally used to preserve tissues (in pathological-anatomic labs and museums).

Note that the tissue she choose was ostrich - a walking bird.
The reason for that is her 2005 research, where she found that the collagen in the dinosaur tissue resembles that of modern birds most. As predicted by evolution theory (birds are descendants of small, feathered dinosaurs) Let me explain.

Proteins are macromolecules. They consist of amino-acids glued together. Amino-acids are complex in themselves. There is a lot of redundancy in such macromolecules. That is to say that there are numerous biochemical variants of collagen while performing the same function. Species differ in the variants of collagen they posses. The more related species are, the more their collagen variants resemble. Because those proteins are coded for in DNA, one could also compare the DNA but that DNA is lacking in the dinosaur specimen. The result in the dino specimen of Schweitzer was that its collagen matched that of an ostrich most. As evolution theory predicts.

That's why she took the tissue of an ostrich in her preservation experiment.

Judged:

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120394 Aug 19, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh yeah its definitely above my understanding , its so high up that no one knows how ,but as ....YOU STATED ,....WE KNOW IT HAPPENED!
Interesting belief
It is indeed beyond your understanding but due to ignorance and an astonishing lack of knowledge of even the most basics of biology and geology. I knew more when I was 12 years old.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120395 Aug 19, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Here you are again ....it took a hundred million years for life to form! Time is not a mechanism! time did not cause life! So you believe your compounds just floated around for millions of years waiting to self organize and spring to life? Earlier you said its just a matter of the proper chemicals in the proper mixture and life goes shazzam!, chemical reaction!
You really are grasping at straws aren't you?
Why not just claim ,as some have faced with the enormous complexity of life,that aliens seeded the earth , it would save you from all that meandering about
WOW! Bobby also needs lessons in English.
In case you didn't know: when we say in the English language that something took millions of years it means that it took millions of years and not that time caused it. You didn't know that?(NEVER overestimate creationists).

WHAT ELSE did Polymath say?
1) construction of the basic building blocks of life (success)
2) determining whether cell-like structures form naturally (they do and demonstrated)
3) determining whether basic reactions are catalysed by the chemicals produced from those basic building blocks (they are and demonstrated)
4) RNA leads to good reactions (demonstrated)
5) tremendous amount of success over the last 50 years in abiogenesis (INDEED!)
6) the instrumentation of abiogenesis is quite young (60 years ago we did not know the DNA code for amino acids and 50 years ago we did not know the basics of manipulation of DNA)
7) we understand a great many things we cannot do in the lab: fusion in stars, for example.

Of course the usual straw man fallacies which never are missing in a creationist's post.
What did Polymath say: it took hundreds of million years for life to arise (you even used that in your f*cktard tattle about time). Hence no "waiting to self organize" and no "life goes shazzam". No "waiting" and no "shazzam" but a pathway of several 100's millions of years.

Let's evaluate the YEC creationist's position:
1. their was a god who created the universe and life in just 6 subsequent days - now isn't THAT "shazzam!"
2. god took .... uuhhhh ..... uuhhhhh ..... uuuuhhhhhhh .... yes he took WHAT to create the universe and life???? Now, isn't THAT "everything came from nothing".

Advise: try to back up your own position BEFORE criticizing the position of others about things that actually are endemic to your own.

The post of Polymath basically says the very same things I said in a few posts to you.

You REALLY have nothing to contribute here.
You REALLY are grasping at the straws of world weasels, aren't you?
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120396 Aug 19, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Same ole articles,...... could have! nope, no life
Same ole response ..........nothing)
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120397 Aug 19, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Dr. James Coppedge an expert in statistical probability puts it this way:..the probability of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance is 1 in 10 to the 161st power using all the atoms on earth and allowing all the time since the world began....That's just the beginning!
For a minimum set of the required 239 protein molecules for the smallest theoretical life the probability is 1 in 10 followed by 119, 879 zeros.
When the evolutionists began saying that life arose by chance, math could be used to measure the probabilities of that chance.
of course since it conflicts with their beliefs , they dismiss the math.
Coppedge had a M.Sc. in chemistry, not in statistics. For the rest he was a theologian.
That's not relevant as such but as you were mentioning it. He has no understanding of biology. THAT you know form his probability calculations.

When you do probability calculation on a given process, you should represent that process correctly. When you want to calculate the odds of throwing a dice, you can't just insert the assertion it has 7 faces.

The whole of Coppedge's probability calculation is just PLAIN RUBBISH. Not for the probability calculus itself, I didn't even spend one glance on that, but for its assertions.

This is what Coppedge asserted:
- "the probability of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance in just one trial".
THAT indeed would yield very low odds. I even trust his calculus on that.

But life isn't about proteins being arranged in just one trial. It wasn't just "poof" and there we have the protein. As Polymath wrote: "several hundreds of million years" - you should have been warned by that. According to abiogenesis, proteins emerged out of very long lasting PATHWAYS in which they were formed building block by building block. Tiny step by tiny step.

The very next flaw in Coppedge's calculus is his assertion that protein building is a stochastic process with replacement. When you throw 6 dices to obtain a 6 X 6 eyes result and you start all over again with the 6 dices in every throw, the odds of a 6 X 6 result are 1/6 X 1/6 X 1/6 X 1/6 X 1/6 X 1/6 = 0.00214%. Very low indeed. You need a lot of throws to yield that result eventually.

But abiogenesis is NOT thought to be a stochastic process with replacement. Every time you get a protein building block that suits for further assembling, it will not be thrown away but retained. In our throwing dice experiment: when you have one dice with 6 eyes, it will be put apart and you continue with the remaining ones. That is called a stochastic process WITHOUT replacement. And THOSE processes have MUCH HIGHER odds. 1/6 X 1/6 X 1/6 X 1/6 X 1/6 X 1/6 = 0.134% to be precise. See the difference with 0.00214%?

The work of Coppedge is only worth to be discarded into the recycle bin. Maybe its paper will be recycled as toilet paper. Which is a much better application.

And of course the inevitable straw man fallacies, never missing in creationist's posts: "When the evolutionists began saying that life arose by chance". Well, THEY DIDN'T.

NEXT.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120398 Aug 19, 2014
Typo correction on my previous post: the odds of throwing 6 dices to obtain a 6 X ^result in a stochastic process WITHOUT replacement is 1/6 X 1/5 X 1/4 X 1/3 X 1/2 = 0.134%.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120399 Aug 19, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
complexity is evidence of intelligence
Provide that evidence, then.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#120400 Aug 19, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Dr. James Coppedge an expert in statistical probability puts it this way:..the probability of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance is 1 in 10 to the 161st power using all the atoms on earth and allowing all the time since the world began.
Yes, we know. A random sequence of any of the 20 amino acids commonly used by life means that the pure chance assembly of a particular protein = 1/(sequence length to the power of 20).

Which is why no biologist explains the formation of a particular protein by chance. Nor does the theory of evolution require it.

Now look at it scientifically instead of simplistically. A particular protein is not the core requirement, a particular function might be. So for example, consider a catalyst. It is estimated that the universal set of catalysts could be created by about 100 million different proteins. There are more than - to use your number - 10^161 possible proteins (in fact the number is limitless unless you designate an arbitrary maximum length).

All this means is that there are billions upon billions of potential amino acid combinations (proteins) that could produce a particular required catalytic effect. The one we happen to see in our bodies, eg. amylase, was just one of nearly countless possible proteins that could have done the job amylase happens to do.

Now look at structural proteins. Collagen - there are different variations of collagen virtually species by species. And as for what collagen DOES, structurally, who knows how many proteins could do the same thing or similar?

Haemoglobin carries oxygen. So do several other proteins and as for how many COULD do the job, the number is again, monstrous. Its not even essential that iron is the electron donor, as right here on earth some creatures use copper.

Meaning, your Dr. Coppedge has not thought the problem through. he has merely done a superficial calculation that panders to your a priori prejudice.

If life evolved again on earth, we might expect the basic functions to exist in some form - metabolism, inheritance, structural integrity, defences against pathogens and toxins, etc etc. but we would not expect to find the same proteins doing these jobs. Coppedge HAS shown how unlikely that is. We would expect an entirely novel set of co-evolving proteins assuming proteins at all.

So, until he can determine the finite set of proteins that COULD do a particular job deemed necessary in some way, he has not succeeded in estimating the odds of such a protein forming that could do it. As far as the enzyme proteins are concerned, the universal set could be contains in a few grams of random sequence chains.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#120401 Aug 19, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Here you are again ....it took a hundred million years for life to form! Time is not a mechanism! time did not cause life! So you believe your compounds just floated around for millions of years waiting to self organize and spring to life? Earlier you said its just a matter of the proper chemicals in the proper mixture and life goes shazzam!, chemical reaction!
You really are grasping at straws aren't you?
Why not just claim ,as some have faced with the enormous complexity of life,that aliens seeded the earth , it would save you from all that meandering about
Time and volume merely describe the playing space. Contrast the volume of a few test tubes in a lab for a duration of a few weeks or years with the entire crust of the earth for a duration of 100 million years, and consider that the self organisation examples already demonstrated "in the test tube": Such as, lipid microspheres, RNA, amino acids and polypeptide chains, phosphate sugars, etc, demonstrably self organising. Self organisation is not a mystery, its expected in an energy flux and violates no physical laws in spite of Creationist's continuing misapplication of thermodynamics...

Now, once you get over this silly 10 ^161 per protein notion, as I hope TB and my posts above have illustrated, perhaps you will also stop with the notion that time is being invoked as if to get around insurmountable difficulties. Its not.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#120402 Aug 19, 2014
bohart wrote:
For a minimum set of the required 239 protein molecules for the smallest theoretical life the probability is 1 in 10 followed by 119, 879 zeros.
As just explained, pure and utter baloney.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120403 Aug 19, 2014
messiac114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Ok, no problem if you are willing to accept the definition.
A kind is a family such as cats, dogs, cattle.
Really?
Well let's go back to the biblical myth of Noah.
There we read Noah was commanded to gather of each KIND a male and female to board on his ark.

In biology a family is a groups of genera. And each genera consists of one or more, mostly more, species. The family felidae consists of five subfamilies based on phenotypical features: the Felinae, the Pantherinae, the Acinonychinae, the extinct Machairodontinae, and the extinct Proailurinae. In total including 8 genera and 42 extant species and 28 extinct ones.

Now the bible doesn't summarize the precise species Noah took on his ark. Let's assume you are right and the ones he took were kind = "family".

WHICH male and female did he took out of the Felidae family? Two lions? Two domestic cats? Who panthers? Or a Dinofelis male and female (extinct sabre toothed felid)? Who knows.

But, more importantly, how did that one species of cat managed to produce the extinct 26 species of felidae species and 42 extant ones in just 4,500 years? Macro-evolution in a unprecedented fast pace!

THAT is the consequence of your kind = family definition.
The Dude

#120404 Aug 19, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
I even trust his calculus on that.
And problem is with these anti-abiogenesis assertions is that realistically speaking we don't have enough information about the specifics of the early environments that enabled abiogenesis to occur. So while the numbers the fundies give out may even add up, the numbers aren't valid because we don't know all the variables that were involved, much less know precise numbers that should be assigned TO those variables. Therefore a truly accurate calculation of the odds of abiogenesis can't really be done by anybody.

So, again for Bo's benefit, we'll point out what's happened and the possibilities of how it happened. The chances of life appearing on Earth are 100%. We know that because life is here. There's four potential possible ways for that to have happened:

1 - Natural development of life via already existing processes, the short version we call "abiogenesis".

2 - Goddidit with magic.

3 - Aliens.

4 - An unknown fourth option which nobody has considered since nobody's thought it up yet.

So far however there's only evidence of one of these. And that would be option 1, abiogenesis. For reasons explained to Bo and the rest of the fundies a multitude of times.

By the way, Bohart? The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis.
The Dude

#120405 Aug 19, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Really?
Well let's go back to the biblical myth of Noah.
There we read Noah was commanded to gather of each KIND a male and female to board on his ark.
In biology a family is a groups of genera. And each genera consists of one or more, mostly more, species. The family felidae consists of five subfamilies based on phenotypical features: the Felinae, the Pantherinae, the Acinonychinae, the extinct Machairodontinae, and the extinct Proailurinae. In total including 8 genera and 42 extant species and 28 extinct ones.
Now the bible doesn't summarize the precise species Noah took on his ark. Let's assume you are right and the ones he took were kind = "family".
WHICH male and female did he took out of the Felidae family? Two lions? Two domestic cats? Who panthers? Or a Dinofelis male and female (extinct sabre toothed felid)? Who knows.
But, more importantly, how did that one species of cat managed to produce the extinct 26 species of felidae species and 42 extant ones in just 4,500 years? Macro-evolution in a unprecedented fast pace!
THAT is the consequence of your kind = family definition.
And this is what renders all Messy's Young Earth apologetics (dinosaur soft tissue and the like) utterly irrelevant. For if we take his BS at his word for the sake of argument, for those arguments to work they also refute all his bogus flood claims too. Since those arguments don't actually address the evidence or the hypothesis of common ancestry, but rather attempt to pull the rug out from underneath evolution by claiming it hasn't had enough time to occur. Same would apply to creationism.

#### Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

### Weird Discussions

Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 1 hr Faerydust 151,005
Sex museum displays Hillary Rodham Clinton bust (Aug '06) 1 hr brooke 19
girls choosing to not wear panties – ok or not? (Apr '12) 1 hr Princess Hey 163
Last two letters into two new words... (Jun '15) 1 hr Faerydust 7,329
The last word in the sentence must rhyme with t... (Aug '15) 2 hr Faerydust 2,175
Caught on video 3 2 hr Jackie 326
Change-one-of-six-letters (Oct '15) 2 hr Faerydust 360
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 2 hr Faerydust 35,205
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 2 hr Jackie 227,279
***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Jan '10) 2 hr Faerydust 84,569
keep a word drop a word (Sep '12) 2 hr Faerydust 16,586
What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 4 hr Jackie 6,985

#### Weird News

More Weird News from Topix »

More from around the web